flexityflex86 wrote:Very impressive that any school has a 166 average.

However, the question does come up:

Is it because Harvard kids are smarter or just rich kids who can afford tutors?

Probably in between.....

Also interesting: Touro's average is above the 75th percentile for its law school - I believe it's the only school on the list to have this.

Smarter. No one needs a tutor/course to prep for the LSAT. In most cases it probably doesn't even make a big difference from self prep.

You're kidding yourself if you don't think a higher % of kids from Harvard take classes, get private tutors, and study with the right materials, than kids from Local State U.

I think his point was that taking a class doesn't really give you a leg up anyways. Self studying is just as effective, if not more, if you do it right. And there is almost no one thinking about school who couldn't come up with the money for the books needed if they saved a little bit.

AreJay711 wrote:That makes them smarter even if you argue that they aren't more intelligent. I go to Local State U and it is full of idiots in all meanings of that word. It costs like $100 to get some prep books so it isn't like very many people are unable come up with the money.

What I'm saying is that the score difference between Ivies and State UGs has a lot to do with preparation levels. It's not just that one group is smarter than the other - they're also better-informed, more experienced at gunning for standardized tests, and on average have more resources to fall back on.

To address other people's points: I don't see how the fact that self-study can be just as effective as a class proves anything. Doing a workout plan without a personal trainer and dietician ordering you around can be just as effective as doing one with them. But, on average, one thing is better than the other.

TLS has warped you. Very few people manage to do self-study effectively. On average, people who take classes (especially the RIGHT classes - PowerScore, Blueprint, etc. - classes that better-informed people, like people at Ivies, are more likely to take) are going to score better than people who don't.

AreJay711 wrote:That makes them smarter even if you argue that they aren't more intelligent. I go to Local State U and it is full of idiots in all meanings of that word. It costs like $100 to get some prep books so it isn't like very many people are unable come up with the money.

What I'm saying is that the score difference between Ivies and State UGs has a lot to do with preparation levels. It's not just that one group is smarter than the other - they're also better-informed, more experienced at gunning for standardized tests, and on average have more resources to fall back on.

To address other people's points: I don't see how the fact that self-study can be just as effective as a class proves anything. Doing a workout plan without a personal trainer and dietician ordering you around can be just as effective as doing one with them. But, on average, one thing is better than the other.

TLS has warped you. Very few people manage to do self-study effectively. On average, people who take classes (especially the RIGHT classes - PowerScore, Blueprint, etc. - classes that better-informed people, like people at Ivies, are more likely to take) are going to score better than people who don't.

Lol? Where do you get this from? I highly doubt I could have gotten anything out of a class that LR bibles+ LG bibles+ Preptests couldn't have gotten me. Or actually did NOT get me.

As for motivation I agree. That's probably the one thing that courses/tutors help with -- keeping to a study schedule. But money always comes with advantages. In the long run this is probably one of the smallest imbalances you can ask for when thinking about the advantages that rich people get over poorer ones. I would cease the QQ.

AreJay711 wrote:That makes them smarter even if you argue that they aren't more intelligent. I go to Local State U and it is full of idiots in all meanings of that word. It costs like $100 to get some prep books so it isn't like very many people are unable come up with the money.

What I'm saying is that the score difference between Ivies and State UGs has a lot to do with preparation levels. It's not just that one group is smarter than the other - they're also better-informed, more experienced at gunning for standardized tests, and on average have more resources to fall back on.

To address other people's points: I don't see how the fact that self-study can be just as effective as a class proves anything. Doing a workout plan without a personal trainer and dietician ordering you around can be just as effective as doing one with them. But, on average, one thing is better than the other.

TLS has warped you. Very few people manage to do self-study effectively. On average, people who take classes (especially the RIGHT classes - PowerScore, Blueprint, etc. - classes that better-informed people, like people at Ivies, are more likely to take) are going to score better than people who don't.

Lol? Where do you get this from? I highly doubt I could have gotten anything out of a class that LR bibles+ LG bibles+ Preptests couldn't have gotten me. Or actually did NOT get me.

As for motivation I agree. That's probably the one thing that courses/tutors help with -- keeping to a study schedule. But money always comes with advantages. In the long run this is probably one of the smallest imbalances you can ask for when thinking about the advantages that rich people get over poorer ones. I would cease the QQ.

My point is that you = very few people. How does your anecdote refute that?

I go to a law school where over half the students had 170+. When the LSAT comes up in conversation (which I admit, is rare), it turns out that not very many people did self-study.

Everyone attempting to refute RVP has seriously forgotten their reasoning skills. Kids at Ivies are more likely to prep and prep well, including shelling out a bunch of money on courses (that you may or may not think help). This is a very different argument than the one you guys are making, that self-study is effective and cheaper. Like he said, your average TLSer is not your average law school applicant.

kwais wrote:Everyone attempting to refute RVP has seriously forgotten their reasoning skills. Kids at Ivies are more likely to prep and prep well, including shelling out a bunch of money on courses (that you may or may not think help). This is a very different argument than the one you guys are making, that self-study is effective and cheaper. Like he said, your average TLSer is not your average law school applicant.

How does one find out his undergrad's LSAT mean? I've searched on my school's website and couldn't find anything. The only thing I found via google was a similar forum topic on another site with a supposed mean.

Register for access!

kwais wrote:Everyone attempting to refute RVP has seriously forgotten their reasoning skills. Kids at Ivies are more likely to prep and prep well, including shelling out a bunch of money on courses (that you may or may not think help). This is a very different argument than the one you guys are making, that self-study is effective and cheaper. Like he said, your average TLSer is not your average law school applicant.

Not the argument I was making at all. I was saying that people who score 170+ would have probably scored that way with or without a prep course.

kwais wrote:Everyone attempting to refute RVP has seriously forgotten their reasoning skills. Kids at Ivies are more likely to prep and prep well, including shelling out a bunch of money on courses (that you may or may not think help). This is a very different argument than the one you guys are making, that self-study is effective and cheaper. Like he said, your average TLSer is not your average law school applicant.

Not the argument I was making at all. I was saying that people who score 170+ would have probably scored that way with or without a prep course.

Assuming that the time spent doing a prep course was replaced by self-studying using the right materials...something students at better UGs are more likely to do...

kwais wrote:Everyone attempting to refute RVP has seriously forgotten their reasoning skills. Kids at Ivies are more likely to prep and prep well, including shelling out a bunch of money on courses (that you may or may not think help). This is a very different argument than the one you guys are making, that self-study is effective and cheaper. Like he said, your average TLSer is not your average law school applicant.

Not the argument I was making at all. I was saying that people who score 170+ would have probably scored that way with or without a prep course.

Assuming that the time spent doing a prep course was replaced by self-studying using the right materials...something students at better UGs are more likely to do...

And something that students at worse UGs have no excuse for not doing other than laziness and or incompetence.

kwais wrote:Everyone attempting to refute RVP has seriously forgotten their reasoning skills. Kids at Ivies are more likely to prep and prep well, including shelling out a bunch of money on courses (that you may or may not think help). This is a very different argument than the one you guys are making, that self-study is effective and cheaper. Like he said, your average TLSer is not your average law school applicant.

Not the argument I was making at all. I was saying that people who score 170+ would have probably scored that way with or without a prep course.

Assuming that the time spent doing a prep course was replaced by self-studying using the right materials...something students at better UGs are more likely to do...

And something that students at worse UGs have no excuse for not doing other than laziness and or incompetence.

Fine, if that's what you think. My overall point was just that the average LSAT score difference between Harvard and Local State U is not entirely explained by one group being "smarter" than the other.

joeljohnson wrote:How does one find out his undergrad's LSAT mean? I've searched on my school's website and couldn't find anything. The only thing I found via google was a similar forum topic on another site with a supposed mean.

When you sign up for LSDAS and send in your transcript, they create an Academic Summary Report. On that report it has the mean LSAT for your undergrad (also the mean GPA/GPA distribution, iirc).

The high LSAT scores of Harvard UG can be simply explained by the fact that there is a strong correlation between SAT score and LSAT score, and Harvard UG students are selected based on SAT score. Now, whatever you think goes into getting a high SAT score, whether it's tutoring or intelligence or whatever is a separate issue.

Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.